Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote: Perhaps we should have newnog implement a penalty payment system for registrations; tag an extra $25 excessive leakage charge onto conference registrations for networks that are in the top 30 list? I worked at a network that made it onto the list of shame. Once. It was projected onto the screen at NANOG 8 during a presentation. I don't even remember the rest of the presentation, because all of us present from that network immediately ssh'd in, figured out the missing route-map on a session, applied it, and looked around very red-facedly at everyone else in the room. anonymous shaming on a mailing list is one thing. public shaming in a room full of your peers...that hits home immediately and viscerally, if you have any pride as an engineer. ^_^;; Don't stop what you're doing, Geoff--it does make a difference. Matt
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
On 15/10/2011 21:25, Geoff Huston wrote: Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? I do. While most of the content of the actual mail has very little relevance to me, it does provide useful leverage and motivation to fix some of the networks where I do have influence. From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. I often don't have the time to read every report in detail and much of it applies to networks outside of my circles. Every few weeks it does however prompt me to go and review my own network (and sometimes wave a stick at few ops people) Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? I definitely think its still useful for the community. Perhaps the frequency could be dialed back a little? I'm sure that there are many people who don't really notice it any more due to their mental white noise filters. Perhaps some slightly different presentations of the data would also make it more useful. I am quite interested in the number of prefixes of various lengths that are seen in the table and that doesn't get included in the mailed report. Perhaps a biggest climbers fallers list would also have more relevance for the regular report. The Top 30 list doesn't seem to change very often... ;-) -- Graham Beneke
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
On 15. Oct 2011, at 19:25 , Geoff Huston wrote: Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? Yes, and if only to tell people that we could do a lot better if we'd care more about the Net than .. (?)economics(?) ..? I keep wondering if people generate more elaborated filters based on the overall data to get down table sizes rather than saying =/24 only or similar? To me it reads as we'd still be below 256k then rather than close to 400k? Or more realistically 300k-ish? Anyone done any research how that would affect various numbers in forwarding paths? *hide* From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Read? Or act? Where are the BNOsFH these days? Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? A good reason would be to add the same damned thing for IPv6 as well to avoid us starting with the same *beep* there already. There was a great number of noise in the table when I last looked myself (given it's been a longer while). Now we want to encourage people to deploy IPv6 and not make it harder for them but a lot of obstacles in policies from the very early days are gone these days and could be cleaned up before it's too late and in addition if people roll it out now, why not do it once and do it right from the beginning, but where's the education on `eek not the same *beep* as with legacy IP again`, as some people are trapped in BBCP (bad best current practices)? Well I know you have it online, but polling a website is harder than getting it delivered to the inbox every week;) /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
- Original Message - From: Graham Beneke gra...@apolix.co.za Perhaps a biggest climbers fallers list would also have more relevance for the regular report. The Top 30 list doesn't seem to change very often... ;-) And now... with the top 30 prefixes in the United States for the week ending October 16th, Two Thousand Eleven, I'm Casey Kasem... (Shuckatoom[1] plays) Cheers, -- jra [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhM4Y3Bo2jM -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. some read it. we are the frustrated ones. no one seems to act on it. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? not clear, sad to say. i really think that the only way to reduce fragging is filtering. maybe a bgp blackhole feed for frags for which there are covering prefixes? randy
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
On Oct 15, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. some read it. we are the frustrated ones. Some read it. I think everyone on NANOG is frustrated (or not paying attention). I would suggest that you keep sending it, but I have no way to motivate you to do so other than to confirm I do read it. no one seems to act on it. It is useful even just as data to show others, whether they act on that data or not. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? not clear, sad to say. i really think that the only way to reduce fragging is filtering. maybe a bgp blackhole feed for frags for which there are covering prefixes? If history is any guide, this will not work. Someone will listen, and those who do not will lose customer (i.e. money). The Internet is a business, and therefore money talks. To date, no one has been able to prove to the bean counters that more prefixes means less profit. For instance, I spoke to someone at the conference whose company is spewing 1000s of prefixes they do not have to. That person said well, FIB compression makes everything OK, so it doesn't matter, right? (paraphrased). This is a company who tells others you have to pay me to use my resources, yet feels absolutely no qualms about using other networks' resources for free. Hypocrisy is live well on the Internet. (I know you are all shocked.) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
Geoff Huston writes: Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? I do; I check the weekly increase every week, and check who the top offenders are. If someone from my vicinity/circles is on the list (doesn't happen frequently; more often for the BGP updates report than for CIDR), I may send them a note and ask what happened. From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Reads may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure some look at it. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? I think it still provides an incentive for people not to mess things up too badly; and a chance of some mishaps to be noticed quicker, with a little help from your friends. -- Simon.
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Simon Leinen wrote: Ditto here. -Hank Geoff Huston writes: Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? I do; I check the weekly increase every week, and check who the top offenders are. If someone from my vicinity/circles is on the list (doesn't happen frequently; more often for the BGP updates report than for CIDR), I may send them a note and ask what happened. From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Reads may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure some look at it. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? I think it still provides an incentive for people not to mess things up too badly; and a chance of some mishaps to be noticed quicker, with a little help from your friends.
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
I read it every week. It's a finger on the pulse of a system on which I am totally dependent... Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote: Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
I read it every week. It's a finger on the pulse of a system on which I am totally dependent... the email i want to see here is i wuz a polluter, but i read the cidr report, i haz seen the light, and i'm gonna stop polluting. no, i am not holding my breath. randy
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
those who read it and follow routing best practicez will continue to do those, those who havent yet given a shit wont get a sudden dose of exlax after seeing their asn in it. --srs (iPad) On 16-Oct-2011, at 5:47, joe...@bogus.com joe...@bogus.com wrote: I read it every week. It's a finger on the pulse of a system on which I am totally dependent... Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote: Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
[routing-wg] The Cidr Report
I may not read it for the purpose of aggregation, but it is useful data to me for other purposes. As long as there is one person talking and at least one person listening, a thread is in order, and it isn't spam. On Oct 15, 2011 3:25 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote: From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
Re: [routing-wg] The Cidr Report
Ditto, and I do find it informative. Jim On Oct 15, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Kyle Creyts kyle.cre...@gmail.com wrote: I may not read it for the purpose of aggregation, but it is useful data to me for other purposes. As long as there is one person talking and at least one person listening, a thread is in order, and it isn't spam. On Oct 15, 2011 3:25 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote: From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
